Islands are different from a continent or mainland. The size and isolation of islands have a profound effect on island ecosystems and their inhabitants.

Scientists who specialize in species evolution have found that, among mammal species that settle on islands, big species tend to shrink while small ones are apt to enlarge. This phenomenon, discovered by J. Bristol Foster in 1964, has been called Foster’s rule, or the island effect. For instance, rodents (啮齿动物) living on islands tend toward gigantism, while big mammals are more likely to become dwarfed (矮小的). Although there are a number of exceptions to this pattern, the trend generally holds true for both fossil species and living island mammals.

Foster’s rule shows that body size regulates everything. In a mainland environment, being large is often a safer and adaptive form of avoiding predators. On an island, with few natural predators and less competition, being really big is no longer an advantage; in fact, it can be a hindrance since a huge animal will need a lot more food in order to survive and reproduce.

A new fossil study of island-dwelling proboscideans (长鼻目动物) further shows that the physical attributes and ecological structure of an island may affect the degree of shrinking in big mammals. On relatively balanced and species-rich islands, competition with other species often result in a relatively less dwarfed body size. In contrast, on smaller islands where food sources are limited and competitors lacking, members of this group become smaller surprisingly quickly. On one of the Channel Islands 15 miles off the coast of France, the red deer dwarfed to one-sixth the size of deer on continental Europe in a mere 6,000 years after the island became isolated.

When we’re facing a complex problem, we often gather a group to brainstorm. We’re looking to get the best ideas as quickly as possible. We love seeing it happen — except for one problem. Group brainstorming usually backfires.

Extensive evidence shows that when we generate ideas together, we fail to maximize collective intelligence. Brainstorming groups fall so far short of their potential that we get more ideas — and better ideas —if we all work alone. As the humorist Dave Barry quipped (打趣道),“If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be: ‘meetings’.” But the problem isn’t meetings themselves — it’s how we run them.

To unearth the hidden potential in teams, instead of brainstorming, we’d better turn to a process called “brain writing”. The initial steps are solo. You start by asking everyone to generate ideas separately. Next, you pool them and share them anonymously (匿名地) among the group. To preserve independent judgment, each member evaluates them on their own. Only then does the team come together to select and refine (完善) the most promising options. By developing and assessing ideas individually before choosing and stating them, teams can surface and advance possibilities that might not get attention otherwise.

An example of great brain writing was in 2010 when 33 miners were trapped underground in Chile. With time of the essence, the rescue team didn’t hold long brainstorming sessions. They established a global brain writing system to crowd source independent ideas. A tiny plastic telephone ended up becoming the only means of communicating with the miners. And the specialized drill that ultimately made it possible to save the miners was suggested by a 24-year-old engineer.

Organizational behavior scholar Anita Woolley helps to explain why this method works. They find that a key to collective intelligence is balanced participation. In brainstorming meetings, it’s easy for participants to become in favor of the most powerful people. The brain writing process makes sure that all ideas are brought to the table. The goal isn’t to be the smartest person in the room — it’s to make the room smarter.

What if you could look at all the things you do daily — walking from room to room, preparing a presentation at your desk, running up and down stairs to deliver washed clothes or taking a jog around the neighborhood—and know which ones will best help or hurt your brain?

A new study attempted to answer that question by fixing activity monitors to the legs of nearly 4,500 participants(参与者)in the United Kingdom and tracking their 24-hour movements for seven days. Researchers then examined how participants’ behavior affected their short-term memory, problem-solving and processing skills.

Here’s the good news: People who spent even small amounts of time on more energetic activities — as little as 6 to 9 minutes — compared to sitting, sleeping or gentle activities, had higher cognition (认知) scores.

Middle physical activity is typically defined (定义) as quick walking or bicycling or running up and down stairs. Energetic movement, such as quick dancing, jogging, running, swimming and biking up a hill, will increase your heart rate and breathing.

The study found doing just under 10 minutes of middle to energetic exercise each day improved the participants’ working memory but had its biggest effect on operative processes such as planning and organization.

There is bad news as well: Spending more time sleeping, sitting or doing only gentle movement was connected to a negative (负面的) effect on the brain. The study found cognition reduced 1% to 2% after replacing an equal part of middle to energetic physical activity with eight minutes of still behavior, six minutes of light activities or seven minutes of sleep.

That change is only a connection, not a cause and effect, due to the observational methods of the study. Additional studies need to be done to prove these findings and understand the role o each type of activity. However, the study highlights how even very small differences in people’ daily movement — less than 10 minutes — are connected to quite great changes in our cognitive health.